To think the ultimate feminist act is ensuring that a man will provide for you and your children?

[ByUmberTurtle]

Life is hard and motherhood is even harder. There’s no shame in struggling to balance work, kids, housework and everything else. Sometimes you have to step back from work, whether it’s due to childcare, burnout or health. In those moments, knowing that your man has your back financially isn’t just practical, it’s powerful.

I’m not a trad wife and I grew up with very ‘independent woman’ kind of parents. But honestly? I think the real regressive choice is staying with a man who can’t or won’t take care of you when it matters. I’d rather be a single mum than build a life with a man who leaves me vulnerable. Feminism should include the right to choose a relationship that brings security, not just survival.

AIBU?

There’s a lot of projection in your comment and quite a few assumptions about who I am, how I live and what I meant, none of which are accurate but I’ll clarify a few things anyway. On emotional labour, I never suggested it wasn’t part of being an adult. Quite the opposite. What I take issue with is that women are often expected to shoulder all of it, invisibly and without support, in relationships where the man gets praised for loading a dishwasher but never asks how she’s feeling. That’s not partnership. That’s burnout.

You’re right, I don’t have children and I’ve never pretended otherwise. But it’s perfectly valid to have views on the structural inequalities that exist around parenthood without being a parent myself. In fact, plenty of women plan their futures mindfully because they’ve seen what happens when they don’t.

On nurturing and provision, you’ve caricatured my words into something faintly ridiculous. Taking pride in nurturing doesn’t mean floating around managing “shopping deliveries.” It means recognising the emotional, mental and relational work that goes into building a life, the kind of work that too many men treat as secondary or invisible. And yes, I expect mutual care. That’s the whole point. I’m looking for a partner that shows up, financially, emotionally and practically. Not someone who delegates responsibility and calls it freedom.

On “stepping up”, this idea that I’d sit back until disaster strikes is a strawman. Wanting a provider doesn’t mean I’m incapable or passive. It means I want reciprocity and I don’t believe that financial contribution is automatically the gold standard of effort. A lot of people earn money while doing very little else in their homes or relationships.

If your version of “adulting” includes sneering at women who want a relationship that reflects their values and boundaries, then maybe the problem isn’t with what I said, but with how threatened some people get when women dare to name what they actually want.

And what about men who earn a bagload but are as tight as a badger's arse?

And actually, forget my life for a minute, I don't want ds to end up with a partner who thinks his duty is to provide , while she ponces about at baby groups and having coffee all day, does a bit of cleaning, then makes tea and feels she's had a hard day. Because effectively, that's what I did on my mat leaves.

I really don't feminism is about falling back into roles men dictate for us. Everyone knows the angel of the health is a Victorian ideal. Most women, throughout history, have not been able to solely rely on a man to provide. Their contributions (sewing, selling produce, bartering services) just want given the same value. Only 1 generation in my family was 'traditional ' but all that meant was that she did a series of shit psrt time jobs around the 'breadwinner". But he still called the shots.

Well yes, sure, now you're 'simply stating' your preference within a wider framework of choice, but you actually started this thread by referring to this preference as the 'ultimate feminist act', which seems to me to be ludicrously self-aggrandising given that you clearly can't justify why your preference is 'more feminist' than anyone else's.

I actually do think there is a useful point lurking in your spews of rubbish: it is sensible for a woman choosing a partner and interested in having children to have an eye on what that partner will bring to the table for the family (whether financially or in other ways). There is nothing 'unfeminist' about choosing a partner who will be supportive and helpful and who aligns with your own values and wishes.

I just can't get over the 'ultimate feminist act' thing! It's made me so angry, but that's probably because I recently read a book about the history of British marriage law and women who had to fight for the ability to deny their husbands all their wages, or sex on demand, or the right to kidnap and imprison them if they tried to leave, or the right to see their children if they were divorced.

Feminism isn't just about personal resource maximisation and choosing a partner who gives you what you want (albeit as one half of a partnership).

I’ll say this once plainly. I am not paid and I didn’t use AI to generate this thread. The thoughts, values and phrasing came from me.

Yes, I think carefully about how I express myself. Yes, I sometimes refine what I write. That’s not “bad faith”, it’s basic self-awareness, especially when discussing topics that tend to polarise. You’re free to disagree with my views but implying that any well-structured post must be artificial or commercialised is lazy and unfair. People, women especially, are capable of articulating nuanced views without it being a conspiracy.

Also, I’m under no obligation to disclose what tools I do or don’t use to write a post any more than you are to disclose if you ran yours through Grammarly or asked a friend to read it over. The question is does the topic resonate? Are people engaging? Clearly, yes. You’re welcome to exit the thread if it bothers you this much but framing something as “dishonest” simply because you don’t like the tone or format doesn’t hold water.

I certainly agree broke men are a burden in relationships. But Im more of a misandrist than a feminist.

For me the ultimate feminist act is choosing a male partner (if attracted to men) that shares the emotional load and physical load of parenting.

The minute a man says he wants to be a provider and protector to me I run in the opposite direction outdated gender norms harm women and men and I could never settle like that.

Good grief

I'm failing to see the nuance of your opinion, I mostly see very basic statements interlaced with a few strawmen, like at: And I don’t need angry letters to know that women are often shamed for expressing that boundary, especially when it doesn’t align with the “everything must be 50/50 at all times” script.

Everyone, men or women, should be looking for a partner, be it a man or a woman, with aligned values and compatible viewpoint. That's kind of broader definition of partnership.

I don't see feminists in everyday life promoting the everything 50:50. I'm sure you'll find someone somewhere online saying so, but that doesn't mean much, and it might come from men as well.

Feminism is about a choice - some women have strong wish to be a long term homemaker - and, while it is a valid wish, it naturally limits the pool of potential partners to those who are willing and capable of supporting that dream. By definition there is a limited supply of men earning over average wage.
Some women identify different value Nr 1 priority for themselves - when I went for the IT school, I saw one advantage of my future higher wage in being able to select the most inspiring partner for myself no matter of his earnings potential. Potentially a free thinker who wouldn't burden me or himself with romantised version of gender roles and would tackle the life challenges with open mind with me

How I see it, the homemaking role is a myth which never really existed, maybe outside of 50s USA and some specific privileged classes.

Through the whole history women worked, thought not always in paid job. In more agricultural times, the "farmer's wife role" was actively providing - being responsible for all poultry, milk processing, food conservation, managing the helpers, herbs, vegetable garden, everyday health of everyone, managing food for the whole group, not only her family.
Some women were "manning" their booths at markets, some did less physical trades, some worked with herbs and health, the women worked. Talking about men as biology-based providers is a patriarchy's crap undervaluing the providing done by all the historical women.

Why is it tricky that people suggest some dynamics are inherently more equitable than others?

The concept that feminism advocates for women to choose whatever role they want to in life, and the concept that on a societal or ideological level, some roles or family setups are more progressive in terms of feminism, are not mutually exclusive.

We've just worked through a century of women working hard to gain rights to be seen as not just property of men and bearers of children, but individuals with autonomy, with rights to the workplace, and so on. I'm sorry if it makes you feel slighted but it's not surprising if, when you are choosing to put your choices directly into the context of feminism (rather than just good decision making, planning, or values), that people aren't lining up to applaud you for choosing to act within the well established patriarchal status quo of traditional gender roles.

That doesn't mean, again, that there's anything wrong with your desires. It's just a bit jarring, when women have literally fought to get basic human rights as individuals and when there are still so many people who are not living in progressive societies where they have rights, and even in developed countries sexism and misogyny is alive and well, to see people bemoaning feminism as some sort of regressive, femininity hating, gate keeping movement that works to limit women if they make the "wrong" choice.

It's just honestly upsetting when feminists have historically been fighting and dying to get you rights and pathways in life that are so taken for granted now. Like you are out here worrying about people being judgemental online and blaming that on feminist views, when there are women and girls out there being entered into arranged marriages, being subject to FGM, etc.

I'm just saying, can we have a bit of empathy and a bit of understanding of what feminism is actually for and what it has actually achieved, rather than letting it become some sort of weird left vs right, conservative vs progressive, trad wife vs feminist modern politics bullshit.

So for you, the ultimate feminist act is being responsible for the behaviour of feckless men?😵‍💫

That's not a feminist act @ByUmberTurtle, it's Misogyny 101.🙄

And if OP you genuinely are a real person and are truly wide eyed and innocent and naive to the connotations your opinions have, I would recommend looking at some articles posted here or some video essays online about how exactly your opinions are aligning with those held by people who are actively misogynistic and anti feminist. Then maybe it would become clearer why some of us seem disproportionately opposed to what you are saying.

YABU to try and use the word’feminism’ as a hook for more trad wife (or similar) advertising. Fine if that’s what you want to do but you make it sound absolutely unappealing. And your long posts are surely written by AI?

Providing an protecting are traditional masculine roles?

No they're not.🤯

They're really, really not.
🤯🤯🤯

I don’t think people are engaged here so much as exasperated.

It's not well-worded though, that's the problem. Wording things well means conveying actual meaning. Your posts use such vague therapy-speak that they explain absolutely nothing. You're 'showing up' and 'aligning values' and never specifying what any of that looks like in practical terms. It's wishy washy instagram platitudes that yes, sound unmistakably like chatgpt.

Like I said, the only substance I can discern in any of your posts is one value and one value alone: marry a rich man.

There's nothing wrong with marrying a rich man so no need to produce such torturous essays framing that one piece of practical advice. You want to marry a rich man and have the freedom to give up work and you think that other women should do the same. I don't see any way of presenting that as the ultimate feminist act, but it's totally fine for you to do it.

There's really absolutely nothing else in your posts beyond this one thing. Marry a rich man. Ok, great, works for you! What else do you actually have to say?

Firstly, you’ve fundamentally misunderstood what feminism is. It’s a movement with the goal of achieving equality between the sexes. Taking this post in extraordinarily good faith, your personal desire to find a man that will financially provide for you has got bog all to do with eg closing the gender pay gap or equality in health care etc??? So no, it really isn’t the “ultimate feminist act” - sorry.

I am not sure what relationship you believe your “right” to be with a provider bears to feminism, if any, or why you believe that you don’t already possess this right? Feminism means the freedom to choose.

I think what you really mean is that you believe you are judged for your choices, and don’t wish to be - but your perceived slight from feminists that choose to provide their own stability is imagined. We don’t care, as long as you don’t belittle or diminish other women in the process.

OMG. Another AI post.🤦‍♀️

Some of the things you say sound sensible but with respect, I don't think you understand the concept of feminism because you purely focus on the woman's needs and assume those have to be met by a man. Feminism is essentially about women having the same freedoms and responsibilities as men. There are many nuances but it boils down to that: we decide what to do with our body, plot our own course in life, make our money and pay our taxes. That's the ABC of feminism. Of course, standing on your own two feet is bloody miserable pressure at times because it also means you don't always have a safety net. Freedom always comes at a price. In that scenario, you don't 'need' a man, you want another human being to share your life because they can be a good partner and you can make a good team (yes, there were good teams in previous generations, I saw it with my grand-parents) but it does not mean that as a woman you have any special right to be provided for by anyone.

Exactly this. Nothing contentious here.

In an effort to appear balanced, you’re not really saying anything. A couple’s values should align, they should support each other, respect what the other person brings to the table and they should both pick up the slack when needed? To me this is just stating the obvious but you’re presenting yourself as some kind of radical thinker who doesn’t play by society’s modern rules. If there’s more to it then just say what you really think instead of dancing around the point.

I think choosing a decent, stable, dependable partner is more about common sense than feminism and probably good advice for men too. Financially providing at points is part of that I think.

I’m often aghast on when a woman on mumsnet has had to save up before maternity leave so she can carry on paying her share of the bills during maternity leave. Or using her savings. Sometimes women are expected to bear the cost of a joint child despite the fact that if a couple wan a child only she can do it and will require some time off work to do it.

I do think it is a feminist position that fathers should be jointly responsible for their children and expect to facilitate the mother of their child because of biological necessity.

Not sure have I posted here. I waited long before marrying. Didn't want a fucker, so didn't marry one. The one I got has had his failings but we made it work. He never begrudged paying for everything. I only restarted work few years ago and keep all my salary to my future and give him some when he's short on money.

I guess I'm your ultimate example op 😁

Well, the "ultimate feminist act" would be overthrowing the patriarchy...

I did. Overthrew my father's will

Who’s asking you to apologise for wanting stability in a relationship?

I’d also love to know where you are getting the idea that there are hordes of women out there determined to find unreliable men with whom to have unstable relationships, as an act of feminist liberation. Seems like something out of the tabloid press in the 1980s.